I just finished my interview with Athletics After Dark‘s Dale Tafoya. It lasted a little less than a half hour, which is how long AAD’s episodes usually run. The episode is up. Enjoy.
Update 12/27 5:40 PM – A report at MLB.com has Lew Wolff saying there is no movement on the stadium front yet. Yet.
Update 9:58 PM – Susan Slusser gets Peter Magowan’s take take on the matter. There’s also a poll.
Results of the poll so far:
I’ll let Ken Rosenthal’s words speak for him:
In mid-November, I reported that baseball was trying to accelerate a decision on whether to allow the A’s to relocate to San Jose and that a meeting between commissioner Bud Selig and San Francisco Giants officials would take place within two weeks.
That meeting still has not occurred, according to major league sources. The Giants remain adamantly opposed to relinquishing their territorial rights to San Jose and the South Bay region. And the Athletics’ situation will not be on the agenda at the next owners’ meetings in January, sources say.
There is a twist to this. As I understand it, 20 days prior to any owner’s meetings, any owner can bring up any issue and put it to a vote. For a vote on the A’s territorial rights to be on the agenda, that request would have to be made by December 22-23. I don’t know if that was done, but I have heard that the infamous “blue ribbon report” (yes, the one we’ve been waiting over 1000 days for) was made available around the time of the GM Winter Meetings. That report would be good reading over the holiday break before getting into back to business and making a decision in January. I don’t expect this report to be available to the public, only to The Lodge. (Side note: I’ve generally gone away from the “blue ribbon” moniker as it paints the process as more formal than it may actually be.)
Despite the uncertainty regarding the scheduling of the decision, Rosenthal paints a picture of Beane and Wolff as moving forward confidently. Something has to give.
Update 12/24 2:42 AM – In an interview with Susan Slusser, Billy Beane continues to say that “he believes a decision is coming soon.”
Update 9:17 AM – Another similar article from MLB.com’s Jane Lee.
Update 11:49 AM – Now, a tweet from Bob Nightengale
All signs and top MLB# sources say that the #Athletics will be granted permission by Feb to move to San Jose.
We now return you to the regularly scheduled roller coaster ride.
Update 2:18 PM – Joe Stiglich picks up the Nightengale scoop and runs with it.
On my birthday I woke up to news that the NBA and players had reached a tentative agreement to play the 2011-12 season. 20% of the regular season will be lost as teams will be forced to play a truncated, 66-game, 120 day season ending in late April. I thought this was a good opportunity to radically change the NBA schedule, which runs from Halloween to Easter with playoffs through the first week of June, to a pushed back schedule of Christmas to Memorial Day and playoffs until late July or even early August, commonly known as the dog days of summer. Oh well, they didn’t make such a change so we’re “blessed” with a rapid fire schedule with numerous back-to-back-to-back game sets. It will surely be brutal to the finish.
It’s also brutal seeing what’s happening to the New Orleans Hornets. GM Dell Demps had a deal to send superstar point guard Chris Paul to the Lakers, who would send Lamar Odom back to the Hornets and Pau Gasol to the Rockets, who would then send a bevy of players including Luis Scola and Kevin Martin to New Orleans. It seemed a fair trade last week and was assumed to be a done deal until Commissioner David Stern stepped in and killed it, citing the now infamous “basketball reasons”. An attempt to revive the deal with additional parts was also rejected, as were two attempts by the other LA team, the Clippers. The Hornets, which are owned by the league and the other 29 team owners, are completely handcuffed when it comes to making player moves and will surely field an awful team this year, whether they trade Paul by Christmas or not. The reasons for doing this are rather divergent. Cavs owner Dan Gilbert complained about not getting a piece of the Lakers’ luxury tax payment. Mavs owner Mark Cuban thought it was unfair to “take advantage” of a small market team. There were plenty of whispers that Stern wanted to stick it to superagency CAA and make Paul an example that the players can’t just dictate where they wanted to go, though that’s not what Paul was doing in this case. Supposedly Paul is being kept on the roster simply to raise the team’s attractiveness for potential buyers, even though it’s unlikely that Paul will stick around when he becomes a free agent in the summer.
A year has passed since the NBA bought the Hornets from two-time owner failure George Shinn, and there is no sign of a local buyer that could come in to rescue the team, despite the fact that the team reached its season ticket and attendance goals last year. There are a few prominent locals who could be positioned to be minority owners, but that’s not going to be enough. The NBA seems to have raised its bar to prevent undercapitalized groups from buying, such as Atlanta Hawks’ failed buyer Alex Meruelo. For the NBA to sign off on a new owner for the Hornets, the buyer will have to A) be willing to overpay for a franchise in the Big Easy, perhaps as much as $400 million, and B) be willing to absorb losses or deal with razor-thin margins in the market. It’s no wonder, then, that the Hornets are a prime relocation or contraction target.
Continuing to own the Hornets is a terrible conflict of interest for the NBA, which can’t operate the team normally while it tries to maximize value for a sale. On one hand, it wats to retain Paul as a key asset even though it’s clear he’s skipping town. On the other hand, it doesn’t want to saddle the team with a bunch of long-term contracts (read: talent) that would make the team less attractive for buyers. It’s a bad spot to be in, and it makes me scared that the league will simply throw its hands in the air and give up. I hope that’s not what happens, since there are options they can pursue:
This is not how David Stern wanted to wind down his career. A labor stoppage is forgivable among hardcore basketball fans, of which there are many and I am one. There are enough stars to propel the league forward. The Hornets debacle is a different story. It’s a complete clusterfuck, and it will be expensive for the league to extricate itself from the mess. The only question is who is going to pay. Does the NBA give up on the NOLA market, a terrible PR move, then stick the buyer with the tab? Does it fold the team and give the money back to the other owners? That itself is an even worse admission of failure, given that none of the four leagues have contracted teams in the last three decades. Figuring all of this out is well above my paygrade and is why Stern has been at the helm for three decades. It’s a no-win situation for him, and for that, I don’t envy him one bit.
KQED’s Nina Thorsen passed this along to me earlier this morning:
NOON CITY OF OAKLAND TO MAKE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. OAKLAND MAYOR JEAN QUAN, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR FRED BLACKWELL EXPECTED TO ATTEND.
HEARING ROOM 4, SECOND FLOOR, OAKLAND CITY HALL, FRANK OGAWA PLAZA, OAKLAND
CONTACT: SUE PIPER (510) 238-7439 OR (510) 499-8933 CELLPHONE
Could it be the elusive EIR? An announcement in conjunction with MLB? To find out, I’ll be spending my lunch hour in Oakland.
Update 7:58 AM – The Trib has more on what appears to be a ditching of Victory Court for an alternative:
Quan is expected to discuss a plan for a redesigned Oakland Coliseum complex — Coliseum City — that could provide new homes for both the A’s and Golden State Warriors.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday that the Warriors have held discussions with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Giants CEO Larry Baer about building a new arena near AT&T Park. The Warriors also met with recently Quan about building a new arena at the current Coliseum, according to the Chronicle report.
Yikes. Coliseum City? What about the poor Raiders?
Update 11:54 AM – Running late thanks to a BART delay. Mobile apps not working the way I want. Unhappy Friday so far.
When the San Jose Earthquakes announced their plans for a stadium near SJC, observers noted the capacity (15,000), shape (horseshoe), and the seeming lack of luxury suites. Now the team has remedied that last flaw, unveiling a package of luxury suites to be located on both the field level and the rim of the stadium.
The stadium’s original design had a very short first deck and a large second deck, which made it easy for the Quakes to add suites if the economy was friendly enough to do so. In going this route, some other premium seating will be displaced, but the 12 field suites alone should boost the team’s bottom line significantly.
View from behind a suite at field level
What may be more interesting is how the suites are being pitched to potential buyers. The suites have NanaWall-esque moving glass walls instead of a typical door-and-fixed window setup. It’s expected that a number of high school and college events will be held there, which is a smart move given the lack of modern facilities in the South Bay. Concerts are not in the sales brochure, which indicates how sensitive the Quakes are about noise and the venue’s potential as competition for HP Pavilion. Field level suites are $350,000 for a 5-year contract.
Suite seating arrangement. Note non-suite seats to the right.
You might remember how the Fremont ballpark concept would’ve had a level of suites only 10-15 rows from the field. It looks like that amenity will go to the soccer stadium instead, with the ballpark getting the traditional level of suites cantilevered over the lower deck.
Just as the ballpark may grow in capacity as a late game tweak, changes such as the addition of luxury suites can be made for the Quakes’ stadium. We can look forward to more such changes as these projects move from paper to concrete.
As of this writing, the film adaptation of Moneyball has accrued $72.6 million in domestic box office revenues through nine weeks (plus $7+ million internationally). Though its run is winding down, Moneyball is still playing on over 400 screens in the United States and is on a highly staggered release schedule. Even now there are articles about Moneyball, Billy Beane and Michael Lewis, especially because the UK release is this week. The DVD release date is January 10.
The Steven Soderbergh-helmed Moneyball project was set to start filming in 2009, so if you tack on the normal one year of production and post-production work, the movie would’ve come out in Fall 2010. By now you probably know that the film’s studio, Sony Pictures, disliked Soderbergh’s documentary take on the story and shelved it just before principal photography was to begin. Fortunately, Brad Pitt pushed the project through and out of development hell. The film resurfaced with Bennett Miller at the helm, Pitt has a shot at an Oscar, and the rest is enjoyably revisionist history.
Prior to the film’s premiere, when Billy Beane was interviewed everywhere about the film adaptation of Moneyball, I noticed something different about the way he was answering questions. There was a palpable sense of relief in his tone. He most assuredly enjoyed being feted once again for being the great iconoclastic general manager, and it seemed he bristled less at the notion. It’s that sense of relief that got my attention, and now we may be starting to see why.
The A’s and Rays weren’t on the recent owners meetings agenda, as attention was focused on the CBA, the sale of the Astros to Jim Crane, and the plight of the Dodgers. Before the meetings started, word spread that the A’s situation wouldn’t be addressed until January, when the next owners meetings are scheduled. By mid-December, Moneyball should be off the domestic screens completely as moviegoers will be looking at blockbusters, Christmas movies, and the rush of Oscar nominees. Moneyball will be – for the public at least – out of sight, out of mind. Like the film’s stablemate, The Social Network, there could be a short Oscar-related re-release early in 2012, but there’s no guarantee of that.
That makes mid-January a pretty good time for an announcement to be made regarding a move to San Jose. It’s a brief respite after the hectic holidays and the big news of the hot stove period, and before spring training and the Oscars at the end of February. I’ve thought for some time that it was very important from a public relations standpoint not to time such a decision too early, as it could pull the rug out from Oakland and the movie. Even at this fairly late stage, the A’s plight is mostly ignored by mainstream press and most of America. The premiere and the initial run were the best exposure the City of Oakland has gotten in a long time, so an epilogue of the team shuttling off to San Jose would seem rather incongruous. Now the movie has made its money, so that cow has been sufficiently milked by the studio and MLB. The international markets who haven’t gotten the release yet are so far removed from the situation that they probably care little for the film’s environs.
Moreover, there’s a parallel story to this situation, and it relates to Billy Beane, the man. I’ve thought for some time now that even though Lew and Keith Wolff are working the ballpark deal, it’s Beane who is the linchpin to franchise being in San Jose, or rather, the Valley. The Wolffs and John Fisher are from old school, old money backgrounds, whereas Beane is the hip, now-legendary iconoclast. As we who live and work here know, the Valley loves its iconoclasts. For the A’s to attract and retain a lot of fast-moving tech companies as customers, it’s important for the A’s to maintain an image. For all intents and purposes, that image right now is Beane. Beane’s image has an intangibility that, unlike any currently playing ballplayers, is not terribly dependent on pure performance. It could even be argued that Beane is somewhat immune to appraisals of performance, as long as the ownership group is in lockstep with him.
If Cisco Field doesn’t come to fruition, what incentive is there for Beane to stay? Peter Gammons put it out there. The team would be put up for sale and would seem to be on its way out of the Bay Area. For Beane, the challenge isn’t just getting an extra $20-50 million to put into payroll. The A’s are simply incapable of being run as most other teams are, with full control over their revenues and environments. You have to think Beane wants that opportunity every bit as much as the extra payroll. Then he can shuttle back-and-forth along Coleman Avenue between Cisco Field and the Earthquakes Stadium, indulging both of his sporting passions.
Many have and will continue to argue that Beane’s role is overstated and his performance overrated. Regardless, he remains in high standing by the baseball literati and the business community. For now that’s what counts the most. It’ll help sell Cisco Field to everyone from SVLG’s C-levels to the average voter in San Jose who will be renting the DVD from Netflix or a Redbox next spring. Without Billy Beane, not only is there no Cisco Field, there probably is no Athletics franchise in the long run. At least not anywhere around here.
We’ll be checking the Twitter and the interwebs for any and all news coming out of the owners meetings, which start today. If you see anything new, post it to the comments and we’ll add it to the post in short order.
Non-owners meeting link: SJSU Political Science professor and TV political analyst Larry Gerston has a short piece at NBC Bay Area about the debate over San Jose giving a land discount to the A’s, and the greater question of subsidies for private parties.
Another NOML: The Trib’s Angela Woodall reports that Oakland’s parcel tax Measure I, meant to replenish funding for city services, failed 62-38 via mail-in vote yesterday.
More as it comes.
The following is purely my observations and reporting. By no means am I a legal expert of any kind.
Proceedings today were short and sweet, so that and the court’s ban on electronic devices made it impossible for me to liveblog. Not to worry for those interested in the redevelopment saga, as I took fairly copious notes.
The case is S194861, California Redevelopment Association et al. v. Matosantos et al., or more succinctly, Redevelopment v. State of California. You may remember that the state’s summer budget battle largely hinged on the fate of redevelopment agencies, as they would be tapped over the next few years to patch a gaping hole in the state budget. The previous November, Brown was elected along with Proposition 22, a piece of legislation designed to prohibit raids on RDAs. The case is based on the idea that the twin bills passed in the Legislature, ABX26 and ABX27, violated Proposition 22 and Article 16 of the State Constitution, and thus should be struck down.
A little background is in order. In short, ABX26 bans additional borrowing or bonding by RDAs retroactive to the beginning of the year. It outlines how payments are to be made to the State or local school districts (if cities choose to use that alternative). ABX26 prohibits additional functioning of any RDA if payments to the state/school districts are not made. ABX27 explains how RDAs or successor agencies are to function if payments are met. The program ABX27 details is called the Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Plan.
Representing the CRA was Steven Mayer, a director at SF law firm Howard Rice. He faced two opponents, Ross Moody from the State Attorney General and James Williams from the Santa Clara County General Counsel. (After oral arguments were done, Mr. Williams’ mother stood behind me in the “device check” line, beaming with pride. Her son did a good job, BTW.)
As the petitioner’s counsel, Mayer was up both first and last. Despite the term “oral arguments,” the session doesn’t allow for big sweeping speeches by either party. Instead, the lawyers were peppered with questions by the seven justices. Immediately, Justice Joyce Kennard framed the argument in a question, asking Mayer if the case was basically the State and Schools vs. Redevelopment Agencies. Mayer didn’t answer the question directly, instead saying, “That is the effect” of the legislation. He went on to claim that the “vice” of the twin props is not that they dissolve RDAs, it’s that it transfers money to the state. Moreover, there are corner cases or gray areas in which the City (or County) loaned money to its RDA. Those types of debts aren’t guaranteed, which puts some cities, especially ones with large RDAs, at special risk. Moody’s rebuttal was that the cities who made such loans should have known how risky such transfers were and that they wouldn’t necessarily be protected. Most redevelopment-related financing is done via bonds backed by tax increment, so it’s easy to see how the money was raised, if not how it was spent. Loans from a municipality to an RDA don’t have such backing. Moody pointed to the fact that ABX26 has language that allows for “all enforceable agreements will be discharged.”
A major sticking point between the two parties was how the two bills functioned together. Moody and Williams argued that the two laws could be enacted separately. Williams actually argued for ABX26 to be upheld and ABX27 to be struck down, which would effectively kill RDAs dead. Mayer considered ABX26 a life-or-death matter for RDAs and argued for it to be struck down, while ABX27 could be upheld and RDAs could continue to exist, albeit in a somewhat neutered form. Moody spoke in favor of both being upheld. There were several questions from the Justices trying to get at whether the two laws are separate or, as Mayer put it, “joined at the hip”. Deciding that may be key to both laws’ eventual fate.
Complicating matters is Mayer’s admission that 90% of RDAs throughout California are getting ready to make payments in compliance with the new laws should they be upheld. As I’ve been reported throughout the summer, many cities are fighting the laws through the CRA lawsuit while hedging their bets by setting aside money for payments.
At the heart of the matter is the constitutionality of the laws. Mayer argued that because of the combination of redevelopment being enshrined in the Constitution and the effects of Propositions 1A and 22, the state was not authorized to either raid RDAs or kill them. Moody argued that redevelopment was enacted by statue in 1945, and only the power to raise funds via tax increment was enshrined in the Constitution in 1952. That’s an important distinction to make as it’s the difference between having the Legistature pass a bill and the public approving it via referendum. Therefore, the ability to create and run RDAs was created by statute and could be taken away by statute (ABX26/27). The Justices, perhaps looking for a third way, asked Moody if cities could have special tax imposed for redevelopment projects upon voter approval. Moody replied that this could happen.
All in all, I came away from the hearing with a much better understanding of the issues and what’s at stake for all parties. The fact that a lawyer representing Santa Clara County was present was no accident. The City of San Jose is a party in this lawsuit, and it only stands to reason that the County, which has had a contentious relationship with the City for years (if not decades), took up the fight as well. Discussion outside the courtroom centered around the timing of the Justices’ decision, which could be as early as mid-December. Regardless of the actual decision, that would be the best timing since it would allow the State and municipalities to plot their course with at least some advance notice. If the decision came in January, around the time of the first payment due date, the whole thing could become highly chaotic. That’s the last thing California and its cities and counties need.
The reign of the SF Giants is OVER. (not so much the outdated Taco Bell ad campaign)
Lew Wolff makes the rounds on the radio again, appearing on KLIV-1590 AM’s The CEO Show tonight at 7. He’ll probably talk A’s, Quakes, and Moneyball. I don’t think I’ll be able to listen to it live, but the podcast is usually available shortly after the interview is recorded. The host of The CEO Show is SVLG head Carl Guardino, a notable A’s-to-San Jose supporter and general Valley booster.
newballpark.org 